Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

The Daily Mirror today reports that the French police commissioner investigating the Paris shootings has "committed suicide". According to the Daily Mirror...

A senior French police officer investigating the Charlie Hebdo magazine massacre killed himself just hours after the horrific terror attack.

Commissioner Helric Fredou, 45, shot himself in his police office in Limoges last Wednesday night, France 3 reported. His body was found by a colleague at 1am on Thursday, hours after the terror attack at the satirical magazine's office which left 12 people dead. It has been reported that shortly before committing suicide Commissioner Fredou had met with the family of one of the victims of the Charlie Hebdo attack massacre.

Speaking to Mirror Online, the Union of Commissioners of the National Police confirmed Mr Fredou had committed suicide. In a statement released after his death, a spokesman for the union said: "It is with great sadness that we were informed this morning of the death of our colleague Helric Fredou, assigned as Deputy Director of the Regional Service Judicial Police in Limoges.

Apparently he was 'depressed and experiencing a burnout'. Riiiiight. Like Dr David Kelly was going through a 'difficult time' before he "committed suicide" before reporting on the Iraq dossier that took us to war under Tony Blair.

Well, readers, I know you'll groan but you can believe what you like. As well as freedom of speech, so 'cherished' by the French (water cannon firing upon anti-same-sex marriage protesters) government, you also have freedom of belief.

You can choose to believe the MSM propaganda surrounding this event. I recommend typing 'false flag Paris' into Google while you still can, because I really am not sure any longer that we can trust the MSM.

May those who have died in this tragic event rest in peace.

Reactions:

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Comments

Andrew said…

The French don't seem so eager to support the free-speech rights of the allegedly anti-semitic comedian Dieudonne M’bala M’bala.

I also refuse to believe the MSM. The chief of police was NOT investigating the case and he did NOT kill himself. The reports that the chief of police killed himself appearing in the MSM were utterly fraudulent when you read them in the MSM.

p.s. why do you no longer have a picture of the pope on your blog? Have you left the church?

To be fair though, Andrew, 'the French' (a category including Dieudonne) didn't go and shoot people at one of his gigs. That's why all these "look at the hypocrisy" comments are basically stupid. No one is saying sincere religious believers ought not to be offended by certain attitudes held in a pluralistic society. They are saying they ought not to commit murder in response. Use your loaf a bit, eh.

How do you even know he exists? The MSM were lying when they reported on his very existence. Think about it...all the facts you have about this man come from the media. The media can't be trusted. Ergo, he never existed.

The actions of the government in protecting Jewish sensibilities by the hounding of the comedian Dieudonne is in contradiction to their claims that the Charlie Hebdo murders were somehow egregiously abhorrent because they seemed to strike at one of the Republic's philosophical pillars, that of free-speech. One can't have it both ways.

It's all moot of course, because the government and the marchers are patently wrong in suggesting that the French have a tradition of protecting free-speech. But to call pointing out that contradiction "stupid" seems a little extreme to me. I wonder why that offends you so much?

When one watches the full unedited version of the "cop shoot" film, we see three points that one does not see in the edited versions. First, the cop was already injured. He is crawling when the shooters run up.

Second, the shot goes through the cop. You can see a puff of concrete dust on the right past the cop. That high caliber bullet, unjacketed will go straight through a target. Most likely through the thorax, with the majority of the blood held by the kevlar vest. It was a throatshot. The "headshot" was a sensationalization by the media.

Three, as the shooter runs away, there IS blood splatter on the sidewalk under the cop. The natural focus of the human eye is to the moving target but watch the cop. There is a splatter from the neck.

"[The Republic] claims that the Charlie Hebdo murders were somehow egregiously abhorrent because they seemed to strike at one of the Republic's philosophical pillars, that of free-speech."

They were egregiously abhorrent because they were murders. You seem to be confused between the crime itself (murder) and the alleged motive (anti-freedom of speech). Many Muslims have said and continue to say that depictions of the prophet Mohamed ought not to be made. That is not a crime. Shooting a load of people is.

It's stupid for two reasons. One, because you appear to be incapable of distinguishing between the clear wrong of killing people and the moot point of discussing the limits of free speech. Two, because you are incapable of distinguishing between popular discourse and specific individuals or institutions. For example: "The actions of the government in protecting Jewish sensibilities by the hounding of the comedian Dieudonne." At no stage did the government of France do anything to sanction the comedian Dieudonne. There was a general middle-class reaction to his (deliberately provocative) act, but that is hardly the same thing as going out and shooting twelve people. Like I say, use your loaf.

"At no stage did the government of France do anything to sanction the comedian Dieudonne."

Really? Is that why, on 6 January 2014, France's interior minister, Manuel Valls, sent a 3-page memo to all prefects of Police in France entitled, "The Struggle Against Racism and Antisemitism—demonstrations and public reaction—performances by Mr. Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala "?

And is that why, within hours, Bordeaux became the first French city to ban Dieudonné when mayor Alain Juppé cancelled a local appearance planned as part of a scheduled national tour, followed closely by Nantes, Tours, Orleans, Toulouse, Limoges, and Biarritz. The Paris Prefect of Police on 10 January prohibited Dieudonné from staging his next three upcoming shows at his Paris theatre.

Furthermore, in September of this year, French authorities opened an investigation into Dieudonné on grounds that he condoned terrorism after mocking and showing footage of the killing of U.S. journalist James Foley.

By claiming that "at no stage did the government of France do anything to sanction the comedian Dieudonne", you've either deliberately attempted to mislead anyone reading your comments, or you're just ignorant of the subject matter, in which case one has to wonder why you are commenting on it? Which is it? Lies or ignorance?

The default must be scepticism when it comes to what is being uniformly fed to people by the state authorities through the controlled MSM. May the Lord have mercy on his soul. It may be that he knew of states' involvement with the "terrorist" event, and was not willing to play his role.

OK, I hadn’t seen that quote (pasted directly from Wikipedia), but I don’t think it changes the point. The letter you mention was a recommendation, not an order, suggesting that prefects ban a specific anti-semitic performance in response to attacks that had been made on French synagogues. T

The departements you name did precisely this, but that was at the discretion of their own elected leaders. Not every mayor chose to follow the recommendation and it was not a uniform act of the French state, as you allege.

Lawrence has already pointed out that the Charlie Hebdo magazine published images questioning the value of Judaism and Christianity AS WELL as Islam. The French state did NOT ban the magazine for being anti-semitic, or anti-Christian, or anti-Muslim, so no religious preference was shown by the state. The Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities all voiced their disapproval of the magazine. That is legitimate. Killing people is not.

For some reason the simple observation that it is evil to resort to killing people because you’re offended seems to upset you. It is no doubt greatly upsetting to you that an anti-semitic performance was banned at the discretion of a few mayors who did not want their towns to be seen as promoting objectionable opinions, but those opinions are not being sanctioned by the state. Also, I just don’t get what motivates you to be angry about it. A madman shoots twelve people, taking their lives in cold blood. Your response: “Yeah, but it’s not worth getting angry about because a comedian wasn’t allowed to be anti-semitic in Bordeaux.”

Try to grasp the difference between defending the right of people to publish cartoons without being killed and the obviously nonsensical claim that people ought not to be offended by those cartoons. Otherwise it looks lie you've got some sort of axe to grind. You leap in there to point out how people can't even be anti-semitic anymore with the first comment. A very odd response to twelve murders.

A terrible crime was committed in Paris. For the deceased we should pray for the repose of their souls. The rest is all spin.

When one sees the French support blasphemy - true blasphemy against the Blessed Trinity by Charlie Hebdo (Islam is an easy patsy) - and march under the banner of the Revolution for Liberty behind Netanyahoo and the other masonicone world devils, then we can start to understand what is in store for the eldest daughter of the Church, as told by the Blessed Mother and other saints. As Our Lady of Good Success pointed out 400 years ago we see Masonry in total control of the world. If you can believe that a bunch of Muslim nutters did 9-11, then you can believe that a couple of Algerian brothers managed to shoot dead the cartoonists and police requiring the highest skill. You can believe it because the MSM tells you so. We need to use our critical analytic skills, because the story doesn't add up. But the outcome will ironically be less liberty not more. How stupid can people be. We deserve everything that is coming to us.

@ Anonymous (‘Andrew’): “The rest is all spin.” Followed directly by your own spin. Containing all the same mistakes pointed out above.

“When one sees the French support blasphemy” – all of them? Surely not! The French guys who killed the cartoonists for blasphemy did not support blasphemy. Once again, you’re confusing a specific French magazine with ‘the French’. Imagine a big chalk board with two diagrams on it. One is the magazine, the other is ‘the French’. We’ve got a big circle round the magazine now. That was the thing that published blasphemous cartoons. The other one is ‘the French’. A nation of people. It’s really not that hard.

You then point out that people who marched in Paris under the banner of Revolution for Liberty (possibly you’re thinking of the eighteenth century now) were joined by Benjamin Netanyahu and other devils. Oh, ok. I see where this is going…… Actually, I’d already guessed there was an anti-semitic subtext, but thanks for clarifying. Well, since you’ve decoded the meaning of that then I guess you know that fervent anti-Zionist Mahmoud Abbas was also on the march. He’s about five bodies to the left of Netanyahu in the picture that was published. Is this a dummy pass to distract us from the secret one world devils who are so secretive they join a million people on a march through the centre of Paris?

If any Catholics are interested to know which conspiracy theorists are being obliquely referenced in the above, they have been published by the MSM in a handy list: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/guide-to-the-charlie-hebdo-conspiracy-theories.html The non-MSM ‘Info Wars’ blog also covered the conspiracies (although it is technically mainstream now and probably makes much more money than the New York Magazine from its commercial sponsors). That should come as no surprise to anyone though. I don’t think there has been a single event covered in the media in the last five years that Info Wars hasn’t alleged was part of a conspiracy. Frankly, I’m surprised regular readers aren’t getting bored of the routine now! Yep, every single news story ever has been a lie. Except the ones reported on one man’s blog.

Apparently, people “believe that a couple of Algerian brothers managed to shoot dead the cartoonists and police requiring the highest skill [because the MSM tells you so]”. Requiring the highest skill? Hardly. Basic weapons training and a map would do it. I thank God more don’t. See here’s the thing. It’s easy to say “it doesn’t add up” in response to every single event in the world. But put up or shut up. What is the explanation? And pray make it improbably.

@ T. HerdAs someone who works in TV and still has his critical skills, the things that don't add up are: that 3 policemen can get shot in the centre of a major world city and escape scott-free. That either means that the French police have a staffing crisis - perhaps all called in sick? - or are inept in the extreme. That supposedly well-trained terrorists escaped in stolen cars to be so equally evaded by the police. Sorry no, don't buy it. One of the only means of identifying the terrorists was because an id card had fallen out of a pocket - this taken directly from 9-11 where a passport was supposedly found in the rubble of the towers - not very bright. That the terrorists could quite blatantly and devoid of any other people being around stage their shootings of the police for a camera conveniently located to record it all. Oh and whoever conveniently shot the action didn't display the natural reaction to dive for cover when shots were being fired. Funny that! No Thomas I disagree, to kill that amount of people requires absolute skill in handling those weapons and planning. Everything about this tragedy screams stage management. There is nothing that we can trust in the facts as propounded by the French authorities. In war, truth is the first casualty.

You then point out that people who marched in Paris under the banner of Revolution for Liberty (possibly you’re thinking of the eighteenth century now) were joined by Benjamin Netanyahu and other devils..

Yes that is exactly what the march was about, and trying to infer that it was only about the eighteenth century is disingenuous. The march was all about Liberty and free speech, all about the Revolution. And then - which surely marks you out - because I mentioned the Israeli PM I get the anti-Semite rock thrown at me. As E. Michael Jones of Culture Wars has pointed out, an anti-Semite used to be someone who hated Jews, today it is someone who the Jews hate. I was pointing out the supreme irony that here was someone who was marching in support of Liberty while lording over the concentration camp that is Gaza, and the other devils all supported him. Mahmoud Abbas was only invited because the Israeli PM had invited himself to the march when he had been expressly asked not to by Francois Hollande. It is noticeable that the French President is close to Abbas. It is also fact that Hollande made a point of walking out of the memorial of the deceased Jews just as Mr Netanyahu was making his speech.

The non-MSM ‘Info Wars’ blog also covered the conspiracies (although it is technically mainstream now and probably makes much more money than the New York Magazine from its commercial sponsors). That should come as no surprise to anyone though. I don’t think there has been a single event covered in the media in the last five years that Info Wars hasn’t alleged was part of a conspiracy. Frankly, I’m surprised regular readers aren’t getting bored of the routine now! Yep, every single news story ever has been a lie. Except the ones reported on one man’s blog.

No what is more surprising is that people haven't cottoned on to the false flag operations and made the connection; but maybe the drug of film/tv with the support of the media can easily support the lie. The saturation of these events by the media totally distorts the truth.

You cite Info Wars as an anti MSM outlet and then say that it is mainstream now which totally demolishes any credibility in using them as an example. Ah yes. then the next canard -conspiracy theories - is such a well-worn attack to put the masses of the scent of the truth. No I go to undefiled non MSM outlets to get a different take on the news. I don't agree with everything they report, but boy there is definitely another narrative that is worthy of awakening us out of our MSM slumber.

I have put up and I will not shut up.

But there is the one elephant in the room that the cartoonists and the liberal intelligentsia supported by the compliant masses refuse to address in their support of free speech. You can attack the Prophet and the Catholic Church, but you cannot attack the dogmas of the holocaust. No in liberal Europe you will be thrown into prison. It is evident that Charlie Hebdo never issued any cartoons in that direction. No what we can truly say is that Charlie is the opium of the masses, or at least of the Western World.

I am not Andrew - a cursory glance at the style of the comments would have disabused you of that association. What I can say though is that Je ne suis pas Charlie.

Popular Posts

I expect that Benedict XVI reigned as Pope for a great deal longer than his official tenure from 2005 - 2013 would suggest. Back in the day when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was seen as really very important indeed (has anybody heard anything from Archbishop Ladaria recently or has he gone on an extended holiday?) the then Cardinal Ratzinger was Pope John Paul II's right-hand man and right-hand men are significant. As John Paul II's illness deepened in the 1990s and his ability to govern effectively became limited, I expect that the competences Joseph Ratzinger took on became more papal. Perhaps his experiences under John Paul II even gave the then Cardinal Ratzinger his novel and hugely problematic idea of a bifurcated papacy with an active and contemplative ministry.

St John Paul II still today has his critics in traditional circles, Koran-kissing, Assisi gathering Popes do somewhat give the impression of a tarnished papacy, but at no stage in either Bened…

PLEASE NOTE:THE POPE FRANCIS LITTLE BOOK OF INSULTS CAN NOW BE READ AT ITS OWN WEBSITE:

THE POPE FRANCIS LITTLE BOOK OF INSULTS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THE FULL, UPDATED POPE FRANCIS LITTLE BOOK OF INSULTS IS NOW AT A NEW WEBSITE HERE _________________________________________________________________________"Old maid!"